The race to be the Democratic nominee for president is officially on. You may think that Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was first out of the gate, but in actuality, former Congressman John Delaney (D-Md.) and former state Senator Richard Ojeda (D-W.V.) were already running. This could be a continuing trend between now and the nominating convention—lots of candidates throwing their hats in the ring, some you’ve heard of and others not. Still to come are, potentially: half a dozen senators, a former vice president, governors past and present and many others—including some high-profile women. The absence of a clear frontrunner and the sheer number of potential candidates has led to a lot of hand-wringing among Democrats about what might happen in 2020. But that concern may not all be warranted. The nomination race for the presidency is unlike any other political contest in America, so here’s what to know as 2020 ramps up.

How the Democratic nomination rules have—and haven’t—changed

The rules are not very different than they were in 2016. The biggest change is that superdelegates will not be allowed to vote on the first ballot. They will be allowed to vote on other convention business, on a second ballot (should that come to pass), or on the first ballot if their votes won’t change the outcome of the primaries. These changes mean that superdelegates will not play a big role in choosing the 2020 nominee—but they wouldn’t in any event. For all the attention they’ve garnered since 1984, when they were first used, superdelegates only played a significant role in those years when there was a clear establishment frontrunner. In 1984, former Vice President Walter Mondale had overwhelming support among superdelegates, as did Hillary Clinton in her two runs for the nomination. In those contests, the superdelegates helped the front-runner overcome setbacks. But 2020 doesn’t have a formidable frontrunner. Former Vice President Joe Biden is probably the closest there is, but from the Senate alone, he may have to compete against as many as five other candidates for superdelegates’ votes.

The complex rules for awarding delegates to presidential candidates have not changed in many years and will remain the same in 2020. First, there is a threshold of 15 percent of the primary vote for winning a delegate. In a twenty-person field, many candidates won’t win a single delegate. Second, while delegates are awarded proportionally—the calculations are to whole numbers—delegates (unless they are from small territories) don’t carry fractions of votes. Congressional districts usually have three-to-five delegates. Some very Democratic, usually African-American districts can have as many as nine delegates, but these are few and far between. So, in a field of 20 candidates, many will win only a handful of delegates. By the time Super Tuesday is over, candidates without delegates are likely to be walking ghosts.

California’s earlier primary isn’t likely to be a game-changer

Because the sequencing of primaries is what makes the presidential nomination process unique, some people think that California’s move to March 3, 2020—right after the important early states—will upend the game. But it will more likely just make Iowa and New Hampshire even more important. Big states are always moving their primaries early in an effort to get the attention the two small, early states get. And, ironically, it only serves to increase the importance of those small states. The reason? No one has the money or time to campaign in a state as big as California at the outset of the primary race, and the verdict from the early states will confer on the top two or three winners that most precious commodity in presidential nominating politics: momentum.

Furthermore, California’s early primary will not necessarily help a candidate from California such as Senator Kamala Harris. She will be expected to win the state. Losing it—even coming in second—would be a disaster that would hurt her momentum going forward. And while California does have the most delegates, it is not a winner-take-all state the way it is in the Republican nomination race. Even a solid performance in her home state may not help her delegate totals.

Iowa and New Hampshire will be as influential as ever

In a sequential contest, being first matters, which is why Iowa and New Hampshire fight like hell to maintain their places on the calendar. These two states will, along with Nevada and South Carolina, narrow the field. John Delaney and Richard Ojeda cannot withstand a 10th-place finish in either state. And Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) cannot withstand a 2nd-place finish in New Hampshire. Coming from Massachusetts or Vermont—neighbors to New Hampshire, which share television and radio channels—means that expectations are high for candidates from those states. Winning in New Hampshire is not about the vote total but about expectations. In 1992, the late Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas finished first in New Hampshire. And no one cared. Governor Bill Clinton, plagued by scandals, finished second and got a boost of momentum that carried him through the rest of the season. One month and one day after winning the New Hampshire primary, the Massachusetts senator was out of the presidential race.

After Super Tuesday only the delegate count matters

Once the candidates have moved through the crucible of the early states, attention moves to the delegate count and actual human beings begin to be selected as delegates. In counting delegates it is not just the mathematical calculations that matter, it is also the delegates themselves and how loyal they are to the presidential candidates. By mid-March there will be candidates who won a handful of delegates in the first few weeks of the season. Many will simply drop out—freeing their delegates. Others will endorse another candidate and hope that the delegates they have will follow their lead. But as the season moves on, delegates (and their loyalty to the candidate) will matter more and more. If there are more than two candidates in the race by late spring there will be pressure to endorse whoever is in front.

If they don’t there is a possibility of a brokered convention but there have only been three serious convention fights in the modern nominating system and they have all been driven by strong ideological battles in the party. In 1972 the McGovern radicals (as in Senator George McGovern (D-S.D.)) fought the old-line party establishment. In 1976, former Governor Ronald Reagan led a conservative revolt against President Gerald Ford, the last of the “Rockefeller” Republicans. And in 1980 Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) led a liberal revolt against the more conservative southerner President Jimmy Carter. It is difficult to wage a convention battle without an ideological underpinning.

Because the modern nominating system unfolds in a sequence of events it has many ways of winnowing out a crowded field. If history is any guide, by mid-March 2020 there will be many fewer players and by summer 2020 there is likely to be only one.

]]>
By Elaine Kamarck
The race to be the Democratic nominee for president is officially on. You may think that Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was first out of the gate, but in actuality, former Congressman John Delaney (D-Md.) and former state Senator Richard Ojeda (D-W.V.) were already running. This could be a continuing trend between now and the nominating convention—lots of candidates throwing their hats in the ring, some you’ve heard of and others not. Still to come are, potentially: half a dozen senators, a former vice president, governors past and present and many others—including some high-profile women. The absence of a clear frontrunner and the sheer number of potential candidates has led to a lot of hand-wringing among Democrats about what might happen in 2020. But that concern may not all be warranted. The nomination race for the presidency is unlike any other political contest in America, so here’s what to know as 2020 ramps up.
How the Democratic nomination rules have—and haven’t—changed
The rules are not very different than they were in 2016. The biggest change is that superdelegates will not be allowed to vote on the first ballot. They will be allowed to vote on other convention business, on a second ballot (should that come to pass), or on the first ballot if their votes won’t change the outcome of the primaries. These changes mean that superdelegates will not play a big role in choosing the 2020 nominee—but they wouldn’t in any event. For all the attention they’ve garnered since 1984, when they were first used, superdelegates only played a significant role in those years when there was a clear establishment frontrunner. In 1984, former Vice President Walter Mondale had overwhelming support among superdelegates, as did Hillary Clinton in her two runs for the nomination. In those contests, the superdelegates helped the front-runner overcome setbacks. But 2020 doesn’t have a formidable frontrunner. Former Vice President Joe Biden is probably the closest there is, but from the Senate alone, he may have to compete against as many as five other candidates for superdelegates’ votes.
The complex rules for awarding delegates to presidential candidates have not changed in many years and will remain the same in 2020. First, there is a threshold of 15 percent of the primary vote for winning a delegate. In a twenty-person field, many candidates won’t win a single delegate. Second, while delegates are awarded proportionally—the calculations are to whole numbers—delegates (unless they are from small territories) don’t carry fractions of votes. Congressional districts usually have three-to-five delegates. Some very Democratic, usually African-American districts can have as many as nine delegates, but these are few and far between. So, in a field of 20 candidates, many will win only a handful of delegates. By the time Super Tuesday is over, candidates without delegates are likely to be walking ghosts.
California’s earlier primary isn’t likely to be a game-changer
Because the sequencing of primaries is what makes the presidential nomination process unique, some people think that California’s move to March 3, 2020—right after the important early states—will upend the game. But it will more likely just make Iowa and New Hampshire even more important. Big states are always moving their primaries early in an effort to get the attention the two small, early states get. And, ironically, it only serves to increase the importance of those small states. The reason? No one has the money or time to campaign in a state as big as California at the outset of the primary race, and the verdict from the early states will confer on the top two or three winners that most precious commodity in presidential nominating politics: momentum.
Furthermore, California’s early ... By Elaine Kamarck
The race to be the Democratic nominee for president is officially on. You may think that Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was first out of the gate, but in actuality, former Congressman John Delaney (D-Md.https://www.brookings.edu/podcast-episode/how-americas-presidential-primaries-work-and-what-to-expect-in-2020/How America’s presidential primaries work and what to expect in 2020http://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/592812928/0/brookingsrss/topics/politicsandelections~How-America%e2%80%99s-presidential-primaries-work-and-what-to-expect-in/
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 15:10:43 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?post_type=podcast-episode&p=558772

]]>
By Elaine Kamarck, Bill Finan
Elaine Kamarck, senior fellow and founding director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution, talks with Brookings Institution Press Director Bill Finan about the third edition of her book, “Primary Politics: Everything You Need to Know about How America Nominates Its Presidential Candidates.” She explains how the modern primary system differs from that of an earlier age, how the old system would have never resulted in a Trump primary victory, how Clinton and Trump actually won their races, and what to expect in 2020.
Also in this episode, meet Alina Polyakova, a David M. Rubenstein Fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings.
Subscribe to Brookings podcasts here or on iTunes, send feedback email to BCP@Brookings.edu, and follow us and tweet us at @policypodcasts on Twitter.
The Brookings Cafeteria is part of the Brookings Podcast Network. By Elaine Kamarck, Bill Finan
Elaine Kamarck, senior fellow and founding director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution, talks with Brookings Institution Press Director Bill Finan about the third edition of her ... https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2019/01/17/from-the-electoral-processes-to-democracy-in-africa-avenues-to-bridge-the-gap/From the electoral processes to democracy in Africa: Avenues to bridge the gaphttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/592600970/0/brookingsrss/topics/politicsandelections~From-the-electoral-processes-to-democracy-in-Africa-Avenues-to-bridge-the-gap/
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 14:44:23 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?p=558444

]]>
By John Mukum Mbaku

In 2019, general elections will be held in many African countries, offering them an opportunity to deepen, consolidate, and institutionalize democracy and strengthen their governance systems. Nevertheless, as the 2018 presidential elections in several African countries have shown, without a governing process supported by true separation of powers, effective checks and balances, an independent judiciary, a free press, and a robust and politically active civil society, the 2019 elections will most likely have limited impact on freedom and equality across the continent.

Priorities for the declared winners of the 2018 elections

In Cameroon, President Paul Biya emerged victorious, unsurprisingly, having supposedly captured 71.28 percent of the vote. Several opposition candidates and ordinary Cameroonians pointed to massive fraud. In addition, the election was marred by high levels of insecurity and violent extremism in at least three of the country’s 10 regions—the Far North, Northwest, and Southwest regions. The violent response by the security forces to peaceful protests by teachers and lawyers against the political and economic marginalization of the Anglophones by the Francophone-dominated central government has morphed into what is being described by the international community as genocide. The “re-election” of Biya for another seven-year term has all but killed any prospects that the 2018 election would lead to the deepening and institutionalization of democracy in the country, as well as significantly improve the security situation in the country, one of Cameroon’s top priorities.

An effective way to fight terrorism and other security threats in Mali and the broader Sahel region is to promote political and economic inclusiveness.

In Mali, incumbent President Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta was reelected for a second term with 67 percent of the votes cast. Although there were allegations of irregularities, the African Union adjudged the elections credible and transparent. Other observers argued that the elections were credible but raised concerns. This election was supposed to dispel Malians’ chronic mistrust of their political institutions, which emanates from the government’s failure to deal with human rights violations, corruption, and nepotism. President Keïta’s regime must now deal fully with corruption and impunity, as well as address pervasive poverty, high levels of material deprivation, and political and economic marginalization. It must also be understood that the foundation of an effective way to fight terrorism and other security threats in Mali and the broader Sahel region is to promote political and economic inclusiveness, as well as the protection of human rights.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the term of President Kabila expired in 2016. After postponing the elections for two years, they were finally held last December, but excluded Moïse Katumbi, the popular former governor of the Katanga Province. The focus for the new regime must be nation building and the effective elimination of threats to peace and security. To accomplish this goal, the new government must be inclusive and must pre-occupy itself primarily with state reconstruction to provide the country, through a participatory, inclusive, and people-driven process, with institutional arrangements that are capable of promoting peaceful coexistence and enhancing inclusive economic growth.

Key elections to watch in 2019 are those in Nigeria and South Africa

Nigeria will hold general elections on February 16, 2019, to elect a president and members of the National Assembly. Muhammadu Buhari, who was elected president in 2015, is seeking re-election. The 2019 elections will be the sixth national electoral exercise since transition to democracy in 1999 and an opportunity for Nigerians to undertake peaceful change of government as they had done in 2015. As many as 16 other individuals have declared their intention to contest the presidential race. As candidates prepare to articulate and bring their platforms to the electorate, there is fear that the elections will be marred by violence.

While many observers see Boko Haram as the greatest threat to peace and security in Nigeria, and hence, to the 2019 general elections, it is important to also recognize the various structural and institutional problems that plague the country. These include, but are not limited to, severe inequalities in wealth and income distribution, religious and ethnocultural divisions, and weaknesses in the political, administrative, and judicial foundations of the state, which have produced high levels of bureaucratic and political corruption, including public financial malfeasance.

An emerging and important threat to peace and, in particular, the election, is the violent conflict between farmers and herders over land- and water-use rights. In fact, in some states in northern Nigeria, many of these clashes have become deadly. Government, at both national and local levels, remains incapable of dealing effectively with extreme poverty and providing all Nigerians with effective mechanisms for self-actualization.

Finally, Nigeria’s political parties continue to suffer from in-fighting and are proving incapable of improving the state of democracy in the country. Despite the tremendous improvements that have been made since transition to democracy in 1999, Nigeria has not been able to provide itself with a governance system capable of adequately constraining the state and, hence, preventing civil servants and politicians from acting with impunity.

South Africa will also hold general elections in 2019 to choose members of the National Assembly and new provincial legislatures in each of the country’s provinces. The 2019 elections will be South Africa’s sixth since 1994 when apartheid was abolished. Since the National Assembly chooses the president after the election, the next president is likely to be a member of the political party that captures most of the parliamentary seats. The incumbent president, Cyril Ramaphosa, who was elected to a five-year term as president of the African National Congress (ANC), will lead the party to this year’s elections.

While corruption and state capture are likely to be key issues in the 2019 elections, inequality in the distribution of wealth and income, most of it made possible by apartheid-era policies, will definitely be an important issue for candidates to address. In addition to the continued lack of opportunities for the country’s majority black population, political parties are likely to be asked to address the issue of inequality, including the redistribution of land, a problem that has made South Africa one of the most unequal countries in the world.

While many observers see Boko Haram as the greatest threat… it is important to also recognize the various structural and institutional problems that plague the country.

Despite South Africa having the continent’s most progressive constitution and a governing process characterized by separation of powers, with an independent judiciary, many citizens remain trapped in poverty and suffer from high levels of material deprivation. Thus, for the country’s main opposition political party, the Democratic Alliance, to be competitive against the ruling ANC, it must provide voters with a platform that adequately addresses issues such as wealth and income inequality, including land reform. Of course, the ANC remains burdened by its leadership problems, corruption, and the belief, by many of its supporters, that it has abandoned the ideals and values that gave impetus to the struggle against apartheid.

The importance of holding fair and freely contested democratic elections in Africa

Elections are a critical part of each country’s democratic system. Elections can provide vulnerable and marginalized groups (such as, ethnic and religious minorities) with the opportunity to fully articulate their concerns or interests, make them part of the national discourse, and possibly have them included in the national agenda. But this is most likely to happen only when the elections are fair, free, regular, and credible and undertaken in countries with strong democratic institutions.

Hence, a critical lesson from African elections in 2018 is that, while they are an important part of the process of deepening and institutionalizing democracy, they can only play this role within countries whose institutional arrangements are undergirded by the rule of law. Only then can elections help consolidate democracy.

]]>
By John Mukum Mbaku
In 2019, general elections will be held in many African countries, offering them an opportunity to deepen, consolidate, and institutionalize democracy and strengthen their governance systems. Nevertheless, as the 2018 presidential elections in several African countries have shown, without a governing process supported by true separation of powers, effective checks and balances, an independent judiciary, a free press, and a robust and politically active civil society, the 2019 elections will most likely have limited impact on freedom and equality across the continent.
Priorities for the declared winners of the 2018 elections
In Cameroon, President Paul Biya emerged victorious, unsurprisingly, having supposedly captured 71.28 percent of the vote. Several opposition candidates and ordinary Cameroonians pointed to massive fraud. In addition, the election was marred by high levels of insecurity and violent extremism in at least three of the country’s 10 regions—the Far North, Northwest, and Southwest regions. The violent response by the security forces to peaceful protests by teachers and lawyers against the political and economic marginalization of the Anglophones by the Francophone-dominated central government has morphed into what is being described by the international community as genocide. The “re-election” of Biya for another seven-year term has all but killed any prospects that the 2018 election would lead to the deepening and institutionalization of democracy in the country, as well as significantly improve the security situation in the country, one of Cameroon’s top priorities.
An effective way to fight terrorism and other security threats in Mali and the broader Sahel region is to promote political and economic inclusiveness.
In Mali, incumbent President Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta was reelected for a second term with 67 percent of the votes cast. Although there were allegations of irregularities, the African Union adjudged the elections credible and transparent. Other observers argued that the elections were credible but raised concerns. This election was supposed to dispel Malians’ chronic mistrust of their political institutions, which emanates from the government’s failure to deal with human rights violations, corruption, and nepotism. President Keïta’s regime must now deal fully with corruption and impunity, as well as address pervasive poverty, high levels of material deprivation, and political and economic marginalization. It must also be understood that the foundation of an effective way to fight terrorism and other security threats in Mali and the broader Sahel region is to promote political and economic inclusiveness, as well as the protection of human rights.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the term of President Kabila expired in 2016. After postponing the elections for two years, they were finally held last December, but excluded Moïse Katumbi, the popular former governor of the Katanga Province. The focus for the new regime must be nation building and the effective elimination of threats to peace and security. To accomplish this goal, the new government must be inclusive and must pre-occupy itself primarily with state reconstruction to provide the country, through a participatory, inclusive, and people-driven process, with institutional arrangements that are capable of promoting peaceful coexistence and enhancing inclusive economic growth.
Key elections to watch in 2019 are those in Nigeria and South Africa
Nigeria will hold general elections on February 16, 2019, to elect a president and members of the National Assembly. Muhammadu Buhari, who was elected president in 2015, is seeking re-election. The 2019 elections will be the sixth national electoral exercise since transition to democracy in 1999 and an opportunity for Nigerians to undertake peaceful change of government as they had done in ... By John Mukum Mbaku
In 2019, general elections will be held in many African countries, offering them an opportunity to deepen, consolidate, and institutionalize democracy and strengthen their governance systems. Nevertheless, as the 2018 ... https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/01/11/the-liberal-faction-of-the-democratic-party-is-growing-new-polling-shows/The liberal faction of the Democratic party is growing, new polling showshttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/591704664/0/brookingsrss/topics/politicsandelections~The-liberal-faction-of-the-Democratic-party-is-growing-new-polling-shows/
Fri, 11 Jan 2019 21:51:48 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?p=557480

]]>
By William A. Galston

As the starting-gun sounds in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, many people believe that the Democratic Party is more liberal than it used to be. And they’re right, at least if you go by how rank-and-file Democrats characterize themselves. But, as we will see, this complicates Democrats’ efforts to take back the White House in 2020.

A bit of history is in order. A quarter of a century ago, when President Bill Clinton was in the White House and governing as a “new” Democrat, the Democratic party was not a liberal party. In fact, back then, 25 percent of Democrats regarded themselves as liberal, 25 percent as conservative, and 48 percent as moderate. In contrast, as of 2018, the party’s liberal cohort had doubled to 51 percent, while the conservative share of the party had been cut in half to just 13 percent, and the moderates had shrunk by one-third, to 34 percent.

This is the first time in the history of modern survey research that a majority of the Democratic Party has called itself “liberal,” and it helps explain why so many Democratic presidential aspirants have headed left. This does not necessarily mean that a left-leaning candidate is a lock to win the nomination. As we saw in the 2016 Republican contest, if a number of candidates vie for the support of their party’s majority faction, a candidate with a very different orientation may be able to commandeer a plurality.

This liberal trend within the Democratic Party is more than an ideological sorting-out between the two major parties. Yes, many voters, especially in the South, who were once conservative Democrats have shifted their allegiance to the Republican Party. But at the same time, the electorate as a whole has moved left.

In 1994, 38 percent of Americans called themselves conservative, compared to 17 percent for liberals. By 2018, the conservative share had declined slightly, to 35 percent, while the liberal share increased by 9 points, to 26 percent. In other words, in the 24 years since Newt Gingrich’s Republican insurgency toppled the Democratic House majority, the conservative edge over liberals shrank from 21 points to just 9 points, the smallest conservative advantage ever recorded.

While the Democratic party has been dominated by moderates, on the Republican side the right wing has long dominated. As early as 1994, 58 percent of Republicans regarded themselves as conservatives, a share that has risen slowly and steadily to today’s 73 percent. A quarter of a century ago, then, a conservative party faced an uneasy coalition of liberal, moderate, and conservative Democrats. Today, a liberal party and a conservative party confront each other over a widening gap.

At the same time, self-identified Independents, whose share of the electorate stood at a near-record 42 percent at the beginning of 2018, have moved slightly to the left. Since 1994, the conservative share of Independents has decreased slightly, from 31 to 28 percent, while the liberal share ticked up from 18 to 22 percent. As a group, however, Independents have remained a bastion of moderates—46 percent in 1994, 45 percent today.

The bottom line: the polarization among those who hold office is mirrored in the public—a fact that will be front and center as pre-primary and then the primary season begins. Nonetheless, while there is a liberal majority within the Democratic Party, and a larger conservative majority among Republicans, neither is enough for an electoral majority. A candidate who appeals only to liberals or conservatives cannot command an electoral majority. And because there are still more conservatives than liberals, Democrats especially must command a significant majority among moderates to close the gap, a reality that Democratic primary participants would do well to keep in mind as the contest for their party’s presidential nomination heats up.

]]>
By William A. Galston
As the starting-gun sounds in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, many people believe that the Democratic Party is more liberal than it used to be. And they’re right, at least if you go by how rank-and-file Democrats characterize themselves. But, as we will see, this complicates Democrats’ efforts to take back the White House in 2020.
A bit of history is in order. A quarter of a century ago, when President Bill Clinton was in the White House and governing as a “new” Democrat, the Democratic party was not a liberal party. In fact, back then, 25 percent of Democrats regarded themselves as liberal, 25 percent as conservative, and 48 percent as moderate. In contrast, as of 2018, the party’s liberal cohort had doubled to 51 percent, while the conservative share of the party had been cut in half to just 13 percent, and the moderates had shrunk by one-third, to 34 percent.
This is the first time in the history of modern survey research that a majority of the Democratic Party has called itself “liberal,” and it helps explain why so many Democratic presidential aspirants have headed left. This does not necessarily mean that a left-leaning candidate is a lock to win the nomination. As we saw in the 2016 Republican contest, if a number of candidates vie for the support of their party’s majority faction, a candidate with a very different orientation may be able to commandeer a plurality.
This liberal trend within the Democratic Party is more than an ideological sorting-out between the two major parties. Yes, many voters, especially in the South, who were once conservative Democrats have shifted their allegiance to the Republican Party. But at the same time, the electorate as a whole has moved left.
In 1994, 38 percent of Americans called themselves conservative, compared to 17 percent for liberals. By 2018, the conservative share had declined slightly, to 35 percent, while the liberal share increased by 9 points, to 26 percent. In other words, in the 24 years since Newt Gingrich’s Republican insurgency toppled the Democratic House majority, the conservative edge over liberals shrank from 21 points to just 9 points, the smallest conservative advantage ever recorded.
While the Democratic party has been dominated by moderates, on the Republican side the right wing has long dominated. As early as 1994, 58 percent of Republicans regarded themselves as conservatives, a share that has risen slowly and steadily to today’s 73 percent. A quarter of a century ago, then, a conservative party faced an uneasy coalition of liberal, moderate, and conservative Democrats. Today, a liberal party and a conservative party confront each other over a widening gap.
At the same time, self-identified Independents, whose share of the electorate stood at a near-record 42 percent at the beginning of 2018, have moved slightly to the left. Since 1994, the conservative share of Independents has decreased slightly, from 31 to 28 percent, while the liberal share ticked up from 18 to 22 percent. As a group, however, Independents have remained a bastion of moderates—46 percent in 1994, 45 percent today.
The bottom line: the polarization among those who hold office is mirrored in the public—a fact that will be front and center as pre-primary and then the primary season begins. Nonetheless, while there is a liberal majority within the Democratic Party, and a larger conservative majority among Republicans, neither is enough for an electoral majority. A candidate who appeals only to liberals or conservatives cannot command an electoral majority. And because there are still more conservatives than liberals, Democrats especially must command a significant majority among moderates to close the gap, a reality that Democratic primary participants would do well to keep in mind as the contest for their party’s presidential nomination heats ... By William A. Galston
As the starting-gun sounds in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, many people believe that the Democratic Party is more liberal than it used to be. And they’re right, at least if you go by how ... https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2019/01/10/how-campaigns-can-protect-themselves-from-deepfakes-disinformation-and-social-media-manipulation/How campaigns can protect themselves from deepfakes, disinformation, and social media manipulationhttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/591519866/0/brookingsrss/topics/politicsandelections~How-campaigns-can-protect-themselves-from-deepfakes-disinformation-and-social-media-manipulation/
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 17:51:57 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?p=556690

]]>
By Lisa Kaplan

It is a time of great danger for American political campaigns and their staff as advances in digital technology have created extraordinary threats. There are deepfake videos that falsify information and distort reality, false news creation and dissemination, robotic tweets and social media posts that spread inaccurate narratives, and systematic disinformation campaigns from foreign and domestic adversaries. Left unchecked, these tactics can disrupt campaigns, encourage extremism, sow discord, and undermine democratic discourse, but there are steps campaigners can take to protect themselves.

Evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 elections shows how easy it is to manipulate social media platforms, push divisive content, and sway the overall electorate. Russian tactics were relatively simple: create content and then use bot networks (a series of accounts controlled by computers) and trolls (individuals operating accounts to achieve destructive goals) to deliver deceptive, misleading, and inaccurate content to as many voters as possible. When successful, voters accepted content as fact, the media reported on it, or both. It is now apparent that any foreign or domestic actor can employ the same tactics to abuse social media platforms for personal, political, or financial gain.

From my position as digital director for the 2018 Angus King for U.S. Senate campaign, we prepared for a well-funded attack run by those who had experience interfering in previous elections. In our campaign, we took stock of what we knew, obtained training in areas where we had knowledge gaps, and created a strategy to protect the candidate. In this article, I distill what we learned about digital and social media threats and show the methods designed to mitigate the risks of digital attacks. There is no “one-size fits all” solution, but our experience suggests there are a series of effective steps that campaigners, policymakers, technology companies, citizens, and the media can take to combat disinformation without sacrificing freedom of expression or civil liberties.

Digital and social media threats

In January 2018, when candidates began petitioning to get on the ballot, we evaluated our strengths and weaknesses against the digital attacks that occurred in the 2016 election. The formats of disinformation are familiar to social media users, but those who propagate them do so with malicious intent. When crafting our digital strategy, we knew to be on alert for the following:

Memes, images with embedded text, often use humor or evoke an emotion. They are frequently shared among social media users and thus rewarded within Facebook’s algorithm and seen by more users.

Deepfakes, videos altered by an artificial intelligence tools to either misrepresent an event that occurred or manufacture an event that never occurred.

Altered videos use traditional editing tools to misrepresent an event that occurred. Like a deepfake they seek to alter the facts that voters use when deciding whom to support.

False news pages and articles are created and run for either political or financial gain. They can be from foreign or domestic sources and typically post divisive or sensationalist content to sway social media users to believe their content and vote accordingly. They also increase website traffic, thereby increasing revenues from ad sales.

In July 2018, the King campaign hired digital consultants to further expand our knowledge as we prepared for potential malign activity. They taught us how information flows across platforms, providing the necessary information to protect ourselves from a digital attack, by teaching us to recognize two specific types of tools used by an adversary:

A bot, short for robot, is a computer script that runs a social media account automatically. Relatively easy to spot on Twitter, bots will have regular engagement and retweet, share, or send content in order to increase the reach of content in order to boost a topic into the trending category. Bots often have high levels of engagement (e.g., hundreds of tweets or posts per day since an account’s creation) and unhuman characteristics. They will typically share divisive content or content focused on a single topic, but rarely or never post original content (e.g., trip photos, recipes, personal updates).

A troll is an account that undermines a candidate’s message through falsehoods or introducing unrelated topics to an online conversation. Trolls are typically run by an individual, who can manage operate multiple inauthentic accounts at a time. Trolls can seek to manipulate social media algorithms, which determine what users see. Through artificially increasing engagement on content, they boost the number of individuals who see content without paying to advertise.

The types of accounts are fluid. An individual can log into a bot account and post original content to mask its nature, or reprogram it to share different content, and a troll account could be programmed into a bot. A single bot account or a single troll account acting alone will have a negligible impact on the social media algorithms. However, when multiple accounts work in coordination, they can disperse a false narrative or destructive message far and wide across social media platforms.

How campaigns and campaign staff can protect themselves

As an independent campaign, our perspective was unusual for an American campaign. We did not coordinate with political parties, and we had to find cost-effective ways to protect our candidate, campaign, and our team in the digital age from a cyber intrusion. From 2017-2018, the campaign spent 4.3 million and by election day had a team of 18 full-time staff and consultants. The digital team consisted of one, later two, full-time staff and at its maximum eight interns focused on disinformation and four interns focused on traditional content creation and implementation. Consulting services for training and subject matter experts on-call cost slightly over $25,000, a considerable amount but a small portion of a Senate campaign’s overall budget.

We saw that the newer challenge of disinformation can come from the left and the right, and the amount of information on the internet can make it a challenge to decipher noise from threats. To focus our efforts, we took an impact-based approach, and considered whether or not voters believed disinformation instead of attempting to figuring out the origin. Campaigns can reduce their risk by focusing on the following priorities:

Protect infrastructure

Multimillion-dollar campaigns contain highly sensitive and valuable information. They rely heavily on thousands of volunteers, who are largely unvetted, and the organization is always in the startup phase. Vulnerabilities are seemingly inherent, but can be addressed and mitigated with low to no-cost measures. Assume that the candidate, the campaign, and staff are targets in their professional and personal capacities. Harvard’s Belfer Center provides a guide for how past campaigns approached cybersecurity, which serves a roadmap for campaigns going forward. Additionally, the following steps can be taken:

1. Create a honeypot, a way to counteract hack-and-leak attacks. Following French President Emmanuel Macron’s campaign’s example, in the fall, we revived disabled intern email accounts and removed the two-factor authentication (2FA). To these accounts, we sent false polling information, fabricated office gossip, pleas for assistance with fictitious urgent tasks, and altered strategies. In the event of an intrusion, this can create confusion about what emails are real versus intentionally planted should an adversary attempt to use the information against you or leak emails to the press. Start this exercise early for a more robust defense.

2. Film the candidate at any public speaking engagements that would not otherwise have a record, in order to guard against a deepfake or altered video. In that way, the campaign has a record of the event and could turn over raw footage to the public to expose such practices, if needed. We learned this lesson after an altered video was released and moved through a series of authentic and inauthentic accounts, and voters believed the video. The video was reported on by the press. A more famous example of this, is the altered video of CNN’s Jim Acosta.

3. Replicate a classified environment, to the extent possible. Compartmentalize access to information by team, and create a need-to-know culture to limit risk, so that in the event one staffers email gets compromised, the intruder cannot access all data. Consider also rewarding staff for raising cybersecurity concerns in real time to allow for timely investigation.

Develop a proactive outreach strategy

If a well-funded experienced group launches a disinformation effort, a campaign’s advantage is its supporters: No matter how much social media data may or may not have been stolen, campaign staff will likely have an edge because of their deep understanding of who their likely voters are and the challenges they face.

In January, 2018, the campaign developed a proactive outreach strategy based on storytelling that limited the susceptibility of our messaging being coopted in a disinformation campaign. We highlighted those who wanted to share their story about why they were supporting the senator on election day. In a state of 1.3 million people, if an imposter account surfaced to spread false information or organize an event, we would know. This strategy also identified supporters who may be comfortable pushing back on falsehoods online, should we need to activate our network.

Develop a defensive strategy

There are several steps that can be taken to seek out disinformation at its origin:

1. Create social media clips to understand the conversation had on social media pertinent to your race. We created a daily report within the digital team that highlighted mentions of candidates, issues in the news cycle, and traditionally divisive issues (e.g., immigration, guns); analyzed each post’s reach; and determined if it was authored or amplified by likely inauthentic accounts.

2. Get to know how the social media algorithms work and understand how the algorithms could be manipulated against you. If a post gets significantly more engagement than normal in a coordinated manner (e.g., content with 40 out-of-state shares within one second of posting), or something looks out of the norm—it’s worth noting and flagging for social media companies to investigate.

3. Pay attention to Facebook pages. Often, disinformation will take a more subtle and nuanced approach to influencing conversations around an election, without actually mentioning a candidate. Facebook currently has a transparency feature, which can only be accessed from a desktop, which shows the location of page administrators. Facebook’s current policies do not consider foreign pages posting political content as grounds for removal, unless pages are paying to advertise. However, awareness can still help campaigns understand online conversations. The following pages have since been removed but illustrate the content that can come from the left and the right. Document and flag platforms as you come across them.

4. Integrate operations with the field team, who are on the ground and always the first to hear from supporters, to flag any rumors. We adopted an operating procedure that required any falsehoods to be immediately messaged via Signal, an encrypted messaging platform, to the digital director for further investigation. Tips ranged from conspiracies to misremembering facts, but a “see-something, say-something” culture gives the advantage of time.

5. Have a plan for what you will do once you discover disinformation. The campaign determined, based on our race, to use two factors in determining a response: The likelihood that the information either originated from or was disseminated by an inauthentic source and the likelihood that it would reach real voters and cause us to lose votes. We developed and used the following rubric to help guide our response to social media threats, and limit the likelihood of an unforced error.

It may seem counterintuitive, but sometimes it is best to ignore disinformation. If a false news story is written but no one reads it, the campaign drawing attention to the story could increase the story’s reach.

Work with social media platforms

Social media platforms control the algorithms, store the data, and control the terms that allow others to access their platform, and we found that our points of contact also wanted to stop the platforms from being manipulated.

1. Develop a line of communication with social media platforms as soon as your digital efforts begin. We kicked off our digital program in earnest in June 2018, and it was not until September, after an altered video circulated via inauthentic and authentic accounts and was subsequently published by journalists, did we develop meaningful relationships with the social media platforms. We flagged accounts we thought could be acting in coordination and violating community standards, or operated by a foreign country for malicious purposes.

2. Our relationships with the platforms, especially with Facebook, were honest. With the amount of available information, there is always a level of uncertainty with regards to account origin and whether or not it is inauthentic. We erred on the side of caution when flagging accounts, and we did not always get it right, but many of the ones we flagged were at a minimum “checkpointed” for operating in a gray area of the community standards, and others removed.

3. Take advantage of enhanced security, when available. Facebook piloted campaign security features for the 2018 cycle which gave campaign staff additional protection. An unintended benefit of this program is that in order to enroll, users must have two-factor authentication, which helped us identify those not in compliance with our internal policy that 2FA be active on all accounts.

Recommendations for future elections

In the aftermath of the 2018 elections, it became increasingly clear that the 2016 tactics have been adopted and implemented by other foreign and domestic actors. On this trajectory, the prevalence of disinformation will continue to grow unless multiple sectors start to act. In the lead-up to the 2020 campaigns, there are a number of actions that would help protect the integrity of American elections.

U.S. policymakers

Designate a government office to curtail foreign influence efforts that seek to manipulate the information voters receive before they cast their ballots, and hold the office accountable to the public. The Department of Homeland Security, which is charged with protecting elections as part of our national critical infrastructure, is the logical choice for this mandate.

Fund public education for social media literacy. We learn in public schools how to read for bias in formal media, but with an increasingly high percentage of Americans getting their news on social media, we need to learn how to spot biases there too. Empower voters with the information necessary to cast their votes by funding education.

Clarify who owns user data. Consider following the European Union example of putting data back under control of the user. With ambiguous guidelines, the ownership falls with tech companies in a space where users have few, if any, alternatives.

Technology companies

Some transparency features are already available, predominantly on Facebook. The Political Ad Archive and transparency features are a start. More should be done across platforms quickly to give consumers the information they need as to whether or not to trust the source.

Increase available information:

Show the country from which page administrators most commonly access their accounts, and make that information part of the basic user experience by integrating country of origin into the post itself. Aggregating historical data to the country level would both increase accuracy and protect civil liberties;

Make a version of algorithmic review tools available to the public, within reason. Users should be able to understand why they are seeing what content they see, regardless of if the post is an advertisement, and if there is a likelihood that artificial engagement caused them to view a post.

Increase authenticity:

Prevent page administrators from using a virtual private network when accessing their page to prevent misrepresenting their country of origin;

Require that 2FA be used on all accounts, and limit the number of accounts that can use the same phone number. This simple additional security measure would make it increasingly harder to start a bot network and provide an additional method of detection;

Work toward verifying all page administrators. Currently, all who are authorized to create political advertisements have had their identity verified by Facebook. Require that all page administrators must do the same in order to start mitigating the risk of artificial conversations.

Close loopholes that allow for foreign accounts or pages that are not paying to advertise to contribute to public discourse online. Currently, only accounts that are in violation of community standards and foreign accounts paying to advertise political content are subject to removal from social media. However, organic engagement on posts garner foreign actors significant reach. It also allows for disinformation that starts with an American citizen to be amplified by nefarious actors.

General public

Read social media critically and for bias. Posting on social media has an objective—whether it’s to share personal news, obtain a “like” on a picture of a life milestone, attend an event, or to vote on election day. Understand the motive behind the posts you read;

Learn how the platforms work and how information is tailor-made to each user. The social media platforms determine the content each user sees based upon a complex algorithm that factors in which users, pages, and content the user engages. Understand how these work for the platforms you access;

Use social media responsibly. Every time a user shares, likes, or comments on content, it increases the likelihood that others will see it. If a user shares a falsehood, be it a meme, a video, or an article, he or she is contributing to the information flow of false news. In this vein, users can help stop the spread of disinformation by reading critically and not engaging with knowingly false information.

News media

Learn how to spot inauthentic behavior and consider how that could influence reporting. If a journalist files an article that draws, consciously or unconsciously, from something online which was moved to him or her through bot networks, the journalist could be giving credence to a topic that is undeserving. This kind of reporting is and should be avoided;

Do not equate followers, likes, or shares as peer review. Followers can be bought. Social media strategists can attempt a follow back strategy, where they will follow an account in the hopes that the account will follow them, thereby increasing their followers and reach. Bots and inauthentic accounts can distort these metrics, and learning to spot them can allow a journalist to analyze accordingly.

Action on these recommendations can reduce the impact of disinformation and social media manipulation in elections moving forward. It is vital that we take these steps in order to safeguard our upcoming elections.

]]>
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/senate_russian_ads.jpg?w=270By Lisa Kaplan
It is a time of great danger for American political campaigns and their staff as advances in digital technology have created extraordinary threats. There are deepfake videos that falsify information and distort reality, false news creation and dissemination, robotic tweets and social media posts that spread inaccurate narratives, and systematic disinformation campaigns from foreign and domestic adversaries. Left unchecked, these tactics can disrupt campaigns, encourage extremism, sow discord, and undermine democratic discourse, but there are steps campaigners can take to protect themselves.
Evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 elections shows how easy it is to manipulate social media platforms, push divisive content, and sway the overall electorate. Russian tactics were relatively simple: create content and then use bot networks (a series of accounts controlled by computers) and trolls (individuals operating accounts to achieve destructive goals) to deliver deceptive, misleading, and inaccurate content to as many voters as possible. When successful, voters accepted content as fact, the media reported on it, or both. It is now apparent that any foreign or domestic actor can employ the same tactics to abuse social media platforms for personal, political, or financial gain.
From my position as digital director for the 2018 Angus King for U.S. Senate campaign, we prepared for a well-funded attack run by those who had experience interfering in previous elections. In our campaign, we took stock of what we knew, obtained training in areas where we had knowledge gaps, and created a strategy to protect the candidate. In this article, I distill what we learned about digital and social media threats and show the methods designed to mitigate the risks of digital attacks. There is no “one-size fits all” solution, but our experience suggests there are a series of effective steps that campaigners, policymakers, technology companies, citizens, and the media can take to combat disinformation without sacrificing freedom of expression or civil liberties.
Digital and social media threats
In January 2018, when candidates began petitioning to get on the ballot, we evaluated our strengths and weaknesses against the digital attacks that occurred in the 2016 election. The formats of disinformation are familiar to social media users, but those who propagate them do so with malicious intent. When crafting our digital strategy, we knew to be on alert for the following:
- Memes, images with embedded text, often use humor or evoke an emotion. They are frequently shared among social media users and thus rewarded within Facebook’s algorithm and seen by more users. - Deepfakes, videos altered by an artificial intelligence tools to either misrepresent an event that occurred or manufacture an event that never occurred. - Altered videos use traditional editing tools to misrepresent an event that occurred. Like a deepfake they seek to alter the facts that voters use when deciding whom to support. - False news pages and articles are created and run for either political or financial gain. They can be from foreign or domestic sources and typically post divisive or sensationalist content to sway social media users to believe their content and vote accordingly. They also increase website traffic, thereby increasing revenues from ad sales. - False information spread from individual accounts seeks to undermine the campaign’s chances of success.
In July 2018, the King campaign hired digital consultants to further expand our knowledge as we prepared for potential malign activity. They taught us how information flows across platforms, providing the necessary information to protect ourselves from a digital attack, by teaching us to recognize two specific types of tools used by an adversary:
- A bot, short for robot, is a computer script that runs a social media account automatically. Relatively easy to ... By Lisa Kaplan
It is a time of great danger for American political campaigns and their staff as advances in digital technology have created extraordinary threats. There are deepfake videos that falsify information and distort reality, false news ... https://www.brookings.edu/research/black-women-are-looking-forward-to-the-2020-elections/Black women are looking forward to the 2020 electionshttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/591515472/0/brookingsrss/topics/politicsandelections~Black-women-are-looking-forward-to-the-elections/
Wed, 09 Jan 2019 21:49:56 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?post_type=research&p=556730

]]>
By Andre M. Perry

Voters elected five new black women to the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections, contributing to the most diverse Congress in its history. Before the election, there were 19 black women serving in Congress as well as two non-voting delegates. After January’s swearing in ceremony there are now 23 black women in Congress—22 of whom are now serving in the House. One incumbent—GOP Representative Mia Love of Utah—lost her bid for reelection.

Fueled by their high voter turnout across the country, black women, who voted overwhelmingly for Democrats (90 percent), increased their share in Congress from 4 to 5 percent and helped the Democrats regain control of the House. Voters of all races cast ballots at higher rates than in previous midterms nationally, but the black voting share among all voters—12 percent—nearly reached the previous all-time high for a primary at 13 percent in 2014, according to ABC News. Black women’s votes are particularly important given that there are many fewer eligible male voters in many districts throughout the country (see Table 2). But assessments that black women turned out for Democrats in service of the party would emphatically miss the mark. They turned out to advance their own agenda that many others can rally behind.

“Those young people are demanding and expecting more from me. And I owe it to them,” said freshman representative Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) at a private donor meeting in December as reported by BuzzFeed News. Pressley said, “I ran to fight for the ignored, the left out, and the left behind.” Black elected women have a mandate to the diverse voters who put them in office to push an agenda, which happens to resonate with the social, economic, and political realities that black women face.

Racial inequality and voter suppression are vital political issues for black women

Exploring the attitudinal and political differences within the American electorate, the 2018 American Values Survey (AVS) examines the White House’s agenda, major cultural trends, immigration, and racial justice; as well as how increased diversity among elected officials could impact the country. On the question of what issues are the most important, black women cited racial inequality first at 29 percent, followed by health care at 21 percent and the growing gap between the rich and poor at 18 percent. The economy ranked as the fourth most important issue at 11 percent; which if combined with the wealth gap, would tie racial inequality as the top issue for black women.

Stacey Abrams may have lost her high profile bid to become the governor of Georgia, but her campaign helped define an element of racial inequality worth pursuing in 2020: ending voter suppression. The winner of that race, former Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, oversaw an election process that included voting roll purges and strict registration rules known to negatively impact minority voters. Abrams identified these tactics as voter suppression, “warning about right-wing efforts to strategically reduce voter turnout in areas likely to vote blue,” according to The Ringer.

Yet racial inequality ranked among the least important issues for white men and women (only lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues were lower). This means that voter suppression isn’t likely to be a fixture on either the Democratic or Republican platform unless black candidates run on it.

Health care and jobs provide opportunities for black women to be heard

Health care ranked as the second most important issue for black women (also ranking high among all other racial categories) on the AVS, and the issue was a key feature of freshman Representative Lauren Underwood’s (D-Ill.) winning strategy. Underwood, who is a registered nurse, is also a former senior adviser on health issues under President Obama.

The December 2018 decision by a federal judge in Texas to strike down all of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), putting millions of enrollees’ coverage in peril, undoubtedly set the stage to debate the future of Obamacare, a stage where black women are primed to star. Republicans who vowed to dismantle the ACA were put on the defensive in 2018 by GOP party supporters, who demanded that their congresspersons maintain or improve upon existing medical plans. Because of the recent ruling, GOP candidates are facing difficult questions regarding the health care system’s future.

All politicians regardless of party or background tout strategies to create and sustain good-paying jobs. But black women offer a unique perspective. Earning difference along race and gender lines gives black women a perspective that can provide a contrast to the narrative that the economy is strong and therefore unassailable. Black women have lower earnings than black men as well as white men and women.

Where black women vote, representation follows

Across the country, black women are running for higher office—and winning. Black women ran House campaigns in 21 different states in 2018. The women who won are widely distributed throughout the U.S., which suggests there are divergent routes and offices for aspirants.

The map above shows where black women have made strides, and where progress is still needed. As previous elections have shown, black women can sometimes provide a uniquely focused voting bloc, able to swing results in favor of whichever candidate best speaks to their issues. Some 98 percent of black women cast their ballots for Senator Doug Jones in Alabama’s 2017 special election, effectively ushering him into office. With a multitude of Southern and Midwestern states electing senators in 2020, black women may again wield substantial electoral influence.

As cited in the Brookings-Higher Heights report, between 2017 and 2018, black women added two mayoral seats within the top 100 largest cities, and they now hold a total of seven of these elected city leadership offices. They’ve also broken demographic trends with these wins. The victories of mayors London Breed of San Francisco and Vi Lyles of Charlotte, N.C.—non-majority-black cities—forecasted congressional victories in majority-white districts in Connecticut’s 5th District (Jahana Hayes), Georgia’s 6th District (Lucy McBath), and Illinois’ 14th District (Lauren Underwood). A same-race voting bloc is becoming less necessary. However, party affiliation seems to matter. Black female elected officials leaned heavily toward the Democratic Party. Of the 285 black female incumbents in the dataset, 280 were Democrats and 5 were Republicans. The party umbrella is seemingly large enough to carry issues pertinent to black women.

Although black women are running and winning in more diverse districts, majority-black cities remain influential loci of black electoral power for statewide races. Thirty-four states will hold senate races in 2020. Eleven of these states contain at least one majority-black city (with at least 50,000 residents) where voter turnout could significantly impact the outcomes of those races (Table 1).1

In summary, as investments are made to generate a roadmap for black women’s electoral success, it should address four main points:

Aspirants should and can run on a platform that addresses black women’s top expressed concerns: racial inequality, health care, and economic justice. These issues appeal to and help define what is seen as a progressive coalition of voters and supporters. Building upon the momentum of black women’s efforts in the 2018 midterms, a 2020 platform that includes efforts to end voter suppression, strengthen the Affordable Care Act and promote income equality can help guide future black candidates and those who deem themselves progressive.

Political parties should invest in candidates running for office in majority-black cities within states hosting senate races in 2020, as there is a positive correlation with the concentration of black residents in a district and black women’s electoral success.

Mayoral victories among the 100 most populated cities, and unexpected wins in congressional districts in which blacks are not the majority in 2018, show that black women are viable in different districts with different demographics. Recent and past successes suggest black women are creating more and different routes to elected office.

Black female candidates who can advance issues around racial inequality, health care, and economic justice in key areas of Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia will strongly influence the outcome of 2020 races, as occurred in 2018.

Black women have created a roadmap of sorts that supports an increase in investment to expand their elected representation. In electoral politics, trust equates to investment—in candidates’ development as well as in their campaigns. Increasing victories for black women in Congress shows that these aspirants are worthy of future investment that closes the gap between black women’s electoral potential and their electoral power.

The Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings would like to thank the Higher Heights Leadership Fund for its generous support of this analysis.

About Higher Heights Leadership Fund

Higher Heights Leadership Fund is the only organization dedicated solely to harnessing Black women’s political power and leadership potential to overcome barriers to political participation and increase Black women’s participation in civic processes. Higher Heights is investing in a long-term strategy to expand and support Black women’s leadership pipeline at all levels and strengthen their civic participation beyond just Election Day.

]]>
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019.01.09_AyannaPressley_Perry_Black-women-Congress.jpg?w=270By Andre M. Perry
Voters elected five new black women to the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections, contributing to the most diverse Congress in its history. Before the election, there were 19 black women serving in Congress as well as two non-voting delegates. After January’s swearing in ceremony there are now 23 black women in Congress—22 of whom are now serving in the House. One incumbent—GOP Representative Mia Love of Utah—lost her bid for reelection.
Fueled by their high voter turnout across the country, black women, who voted overwhelmingly for Democrats (90 percent), increased their share in Congress from 4 to 5 percent and helped the Democrats regain control of the House. Voters of all races cast ballots at higher rates than in previous midterms nationally, but the black voting share among all voters—12 percent—nearly reached the previous all-time high for a primary at 13 percent in 2014, according to ABC News. Black women’s votes are particularly important given that there are many fewer eligible male voters in many districts throughout the country (see Table 2). But assessments that black women turned out for Democrats in service of the party would emphatically miss the mark. They turned out to advance their own agenda that many others can rally behind.
“Those young people are demanding and expecting more from me. And I owe it to them,” said freshman representative Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) at a private donor meeting in December as reported by BuzzFeed News. Pressley said, “I ran to fight for the ignored, the left out, and the left behind.” Black elected women have a mandate to the diverse voters who put them in office to push an agenda, which happens to resonate with the social, economic, and political realities that black women face.
Looking ahead to 2020, black women should build upon the lessons learned from 2018 elections. Findings from the 2018 American Values Survey (AVS) conducted by the nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) as well as the 2018 report Analysis of black women’s electoral strength in an era of fractured politics authored by the Brookings Institution and Higher Heights Leadership Fund offer a roadmap.
Racial inequality and voter suppression are vital political issues for black women
Exploring the attitudinal and political differences within the American electorate, the 2018 American Values Survey (AVS) examines the White House’s agenda, major cultural trends, immigration, and racial justice; as well as how increased diversity among elected officials could impact the country. On the question of what issues are the most important, black women cited racial inequality first at 29 percent, followed by health care at 21 percent and the growing gap between the rich and poor at 18 percent. The economy ranked as the fourth most important issue at 11 percent; which if combined with the wealth gap, would tie racial inequality as the top issue for black women.
Stacey Abrams may have lost her high profile bid to become the governor of Georgia, but her campaign helped define an element of racial inequality worth pursuing in 2020: ending voter suppression. The winner of that race, former Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, oversaw an election process that included voting roll purges and strict registration rules known to negatively impact minority voters. Abrams identified these tactics as voter suppression, “warning about right-wing efforts to strategically reduce voter turnout in areas likely to vote blue,” according to The Ringer.
Yet racial inequality ranked among the least important issues for white men and women (only lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues were lower). This means that voter suppression isn’t likely to be a fixture on either the Democratic or Republican platform unless black candidates ... By Andre M. Perry
Voters elected five new black women to the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections, contributing to the most diverse Congress in its history. Before the election, there were 19 black women serving in Congress as ... https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-midsized-metro-areas-deserve-our-attention/Why midsized metro areas deserve our attentionhttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/591362640/0/brookingsrss/topics/politicsandelections~Why-midsized-metro-areas-deserve-our-attention/
Wed, 09 Jan 2019 20:30:28 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?post_type=research&p=556693

]]>
By Alan Berube

Over the past few years, new research and major political and business events have combined to make Americans more attentive to how place shapes economic and social outcomes.

Back in 2013, Raj Chetty and his colleagues published a groundbreaking study showing that where a child grows up has major consequences for his/her chances at upward economic mobility. The results of the 2016 presidential election shone a spotlight on areas of the United States, particularly smaller towns and large swaths of the Midwest, that felt disconnected from the prosperity other parts of the country were enjoying. And the nationwide competition in 2017-2018 to land Amazon’s second headquarters, which elicited proposals from more than 200 U.S. communities both large and small, highlighted the increasing concentration of tech jobs in a few large markets, especially when “HQ2” eventually landed in New York and Washington, D.C.

One example of this increased awareness: Back in 2007, noted urban economist Ed Glaeser was writing essays like this one that decried the expenditure of federal dollars to support struggling large cities like Buffalo, N.Y. By 2018, he had co-authored a Brookings report recommending that the federal government provide place-based employment subsidies to individuals in areas of high unemployment like Appalachia.

As my colleagues Clara Hendrickson, Mark Muro, and Bill Galston recently described, the underlying trend toward greater disparities across places isn’t all that new. They show that beginning in the mid-1980s, wage and employment growth in the most prosperous metropolitan areas began to significantly outpace that in other metro areas. And they go on to demonstrate that this trend has affected small, rural communities most negatively, especially in the last decade, with significant attendant political consequences.

Consensus is forming that place matters for economic policy; and evidence is mounting that the largest places are succeeding while smaller ones are not.

These ideas aim to strike a middle ground between what urbanist Jason Segedy calls the U-Haul School of Urban Policy—that government policy should focus primarily on enabling people to relocate to places with greater economic opportunity—and the notion that public spending can and should prop up highly economically distressed small towns all across the American landscape.

Efforts to create geographically broader-based economic prosperity should focus particular attention on midsized metro areas, those with at least 250,000, but fewer than 1 million, residents.

To be more explicit, I think there’s an emerging consensus developing at Brookings Metro (and perhaps elsewhere) that efforts to create geographically broader-based economic prosperity should focus particular attention on midsized metro areas, those with at least 250,000, but fewer than 1 million, residents. These places are distinctive in their own right, while they provide a valuable window into the issues facing the United States as a whole. Here are five reasons to pay attention to midsized metro areas:

They are falling behind their larger counterparts

First off, it’s worth observing that midsized metro areas overall exemplify many of the downsides of the divergence trend in the U.S. economy. As capital, growth, and talent have increasingly gravitated toward the nation’s large, superstar cities, the overall rate of job growth in midsized metro areas has lagged that in large (more than 1 million residents) metro areas by almost 4 percentage points this decade (Figure 1). This trend is pronounced with respect to high-tech jobs, which regions covet because they produce such significant spillover effects, as economist Enrico Moretti has found. The share of U.S. high-tech jobs located in midsized metro areas dropped from 15 percent to 13 percent between 2010 and 2017. Indeed, the first preference Amazon expressed in its request for proposals to host HQ2 was “metropolitan areas with more than one million people” (and eventually they selected America’s first- and sixth-largest metro areas). That’s a clear signal that midsized metro areas face growing competitive challenges.

They contain a significant share of America’s population

Altogether, 68 million people—or one in four Americans—live in one of the nation’s 135 midsized metro areas. While that’s only a little more than one-third the number of people who live in large metro areas (183 million), it’s far more than the number who live in smaller metro areas with populations under 250,000 (29 million), or even the 46 million “rural” Americans who live outside metro areas altogether (Figure 2). Midsized metro areas range in population from Yakima, Wash. (250,200) to Tulsa, Okla. (990,700). Although these regions lack the size and global reach of their much larger metro counterparts, they arguably retain the requisite scale to offer a distinctive economy and quality of life to their businesses and residents. Moreover, their size may also facilitate the sort of pragmatic, cross-sector problem solving that often bedevils larger metro areas; to wit, the average midsized metro area encompasses just 2.8 U.S. counties, versus 8.2 counties in the average large metro area.

They are geographically widespread

Midsized metro areas can be found in 44 of the 50 U.S. states (map 1). Several states including Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico, and South Dakota that have no large metro areas are home to at least one midsized metro area. Midsized metro areas are an especially important feature of the Heartland, a region encompassing the Midwest and interior South whose aggregate economic performance has lagged national averages in recent decades. In the Heartland, midsized metro areas contain nearly 28 percent of the population, versus 24 percent nationally. Even in Iowa, typically portrayed as a rural state, nearly 40 percent of the population lives in midsized metro areas such as Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, and the Quad Cities. These city-regions thus represent focal points for the renewal of a demographically, economically, and politically important area of the country.

They are a demographic and economic microcosm of the United States

While midsized metro areas are searching for new niches in the global economy, accelerating demographic transformations are challenging their embedded norms and power structures, often stressing their social fabric in the process. In these ways, midsized metro areas are experiencing many of the economic and social crosscurrents affecting the nation as a whole.

A comparison of midsized metro areas’ demographic and economic profiles to national averages reveals a strong resemblance. Collectively, 65 percent of midsized metro area residents are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, 11 percent are black, and 4 percent are Asian, figures that very closely mirror each group’s share of total U.S. population (Figure 3). As in the United States as a whole, Hispanics have accounted for roughly 50 percent of population growth in midsized metro areas since 2010. Among midsized metro areas’ 30 million workers, one in seven is employed in health care; one in eight works in retail; one in nine is employed in manufacturing; and one in ten works in education, figures that also closely track national averages (Table 1).

The ability of midsized metro areas to successfully navigate racial and ethnic transitions, and to continue to evolve their economies from production to services, may thus be critical harbingers for our nation’s abilities to do so overall.

They represent key battlegrounds in American politics

As their over-representation in the Heartland suggests, midsized metro areas are critical pivot points within the U.S. electoral map. In the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump captured about 4.6 percent more of the popular vote share than Hillary Clinton in midsized metro areas (Figure 4). This was far closer than the 16 to 18 percentage-point differential that existed in large (advantage: Clinton) and small (advantage: Trump) metro areas. In the 2012 contest, the margin in midsized metro areas was even narrower, at 1.4 percentage points (to Mitt Romney over Barack Obama). And in 2018, while major-metro suburbs received most of the battleground attention, several House districts that changed party hands represented midsized metro areas, such as Modesto, Calif.; Des Moines, Iowa; Lansing, Mich.; Utica-Rome, N.Y.; and Reading, Pa.

What would “paying attention” to midsized metro areas look like, in practice?

For public policymakers, at the federal and state levels, it would mean focusing key expenditures—for economic development, higher education, and infrastructure—in these midsized communities. This spending could strengthen their distinctive regional industry clusters; bolster the contribution of their public colleges and universities to local innovation and talent development; and connect these places more efficiently to both larger nearby cities and surrounding small towns and rural areas. Geographically targeting spending to these midsized areas—through dedicated new programs like Indiana’s Regional Cities Initiative, or preferences for these areas within existing programs—will likely generate a higher rate of return than providing a thinner layer of subsidy across all types of communities, or further juicing the economy in big metro areas already at risk of overheating.

For urbanists, it would mean broadening our aperture beyond the very largest cities and metro areas. Places like Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. still exert disproportionate influence on what passes for urban policy in America, largely because they house our nation’s most significant media outlets. As Jason Segedy recently wrote in City Observatory, this has led us to obsess about the problems of urban affordability, while comparatively ignoring the problems of disinvestment and decline that many midsized metro areas, particularly those in the Heartland (like Segedy’s home city of Akron, Ohio), continue to face.

While Brookings Metro has always focused its work on a broad range of cities across America, our own practice of analyzing data almost exclusively for the 100 largest metro areas (which now have populations of 550,000 and above) may be due for a refresh. In doing so, we’ll also need to consider how to deliver these research insights to midsized metro leaders in new ways, given the decline of traditional media in these markets.

Of course, America’s largest metro areas, which house more than half our population, still matter greatly to our national prosperity. Many of those large regions confront serious challenges—industrial transition, outdated infrastructure, social inequality—that demand continued attention. Yet amid rising concern about our nation’s economic and social cohesion, this is arguably the right time to also lift up the midsized metro areas that are poised to determine whether our country grows together, or grows apart.

]]>
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019.01.09_Metro_Berube_Midsized_related1.jpg?w=278By Alan Berube
Over the past few years, new research and major political and business events have combined to make Americans more attentive to how place shapes economic and social outcomes.
Back in 2013, Raj Chetty and his colleagues published a groundbreaking study showing that where a child grows up has major consequences for his/her chances at upward economic mobility. The results of the 2016 presidential election shone a spotlight on areas of the United States, particularly smaller towns and large swaths of the Midwest, that felt disconnected from the prosperity other parts of the country were enjoying. And the nationwide competition in 2017-2018 to land Amazon’s second headquarters, which elicited proposals from more than 200 U.S. communities both large and small, highlighted the increasing concentration of tech jobs in a few large markets, especially when “HQ2” eventually landed in New York and Washington, D.C.
One example of this increased awareness: Back in 2007, noted urban economist Ed Glaeser was writing essays like this one that decried the expenditure of federal dollars to support struggling large cities like Buffalo, N.Y. By 2018, he had co-authored a Brookings report recommending that the federal government provide place-based employment subsidies to individuals in areas of high unemployment like Appalachia.
As my colleagues Clara Hendrickson, Mark Muro, and Bill Galston recently described, the underlying trend toward greater disparities across places isn’t all that new. They show that beginning in the mid-1980s, wage and employment growth in the most prosperous metropolitan areas began to significantly outpace that in other metro areas. And they go on to demonstrate that this trend has affected small, rural communities most negatively, especially in the last decade, with significant attendant political consequences.
So a consensus is forming that place matters for economic policy; and evidence is mounting that the largest places are succeeding while smaller ones are not. The question of what to do about this has animated a lot of work at Brookings Metro in the past couple of years, including John Austin’s series on how to reinvigorate lagging portions of the Rust Belt; my report with Cecile Murray on stimulating growth and opportunity in older industrial cities; Nathan Arnosti and Amy Liu’s essay on strengthening ties between urban and rural regions; and the aforementioned Hendrickson/Muro/Galston report suggesting a suite of strategies for instigating new growth in places left behind.
Consensus is forming that place matters for economic policy; and evidence is mounting that the largest places are succeeding while smaller ones are not.
These ideas aim to strike a middle ground between what urbanist Jason Segedy calls the U-Haul School of Urban Policy—that government policy should focus primarily on enabling people to relocate to places with greater economic opportunity—and the notion that public spending can and should prop up highly economically distressed small towns all across the American landscape.
Efforts to create geographically broader-based economic prosperity should focus particular attention on midsized metro areas, those with at least 250,000, but fewer than 1 million, residents.
To be more explicit, I think there’s an emerging consensus developing at Brookings Metro (and perhaps elsewhere) that efforts to create geographically broader-based economic prosperity should focus particular attention on midsized metro areas, those with at least 250,000, but fewer than 1 million, residents. These places are distinctive in their own right, while they provide a valuable window into the issues facing the United States as a whole. Here are five reasons to pay attention to midsized metro areas:
They are falling behind their larger counterparts
First off, it’s worth observing that midsized metro areas overall exemplify ... By Alan Berube
Over the past few years, new research and major political and business events have combined to make Americans more attentive to how place shapes economic and social outcomes.
Back in 2013, Raj Chetty and his colleagues published a ... https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/01/09/trumps-shutdown-could-wear-out-his-welcome-in-the-senate-once-and-for-all/Trump’s shutdown could wear out his welcome in the Senate once and for allhttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/591332248/0/brookingsrss/topics/politicsandelections~Trump%e2%80%99s-shutdown-could-wear-out-his-welcome-in-the-Senate-once-and-for-all/
Wed, 09 Jan 2019 17:10:23 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?p=556624

]]>
By Elaine Kamarck

Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK) has joined three other Republican Senators—Thom Tillis (NC), Susan Collins (ME), and Cory Gardner (CO)—to call for an end to the ongoing partial shutdown. These party defections illustrate that the longer Trump lets the shutdown go on, the more dangerous it gets for him. Once there are a total of 20 Republicans willing to vote with Democrats, they can override Trump’s threatened veto of the spending bill and the government will reopen. In other words, four down; 16 to go.

Such an outcome is not out of the question. Trump has been embarrassed by his party in the Senate before—remember the failed vote to repeal Obamacare? But this president seems unfazed by ordinary embarrassment and cares only about pleasing his base, not putting together majorities. What the president may not realize, however—and what makes a vote like this especially hazardous for him—is that 67 votes in the Senate is the same number that would be needed to convict him should the House, pending one or more bombshells in the Mueller report, decide to vote on articles of impeachment.

Can we imagine 20 Republicans deciding to abandon their party’s controversial and chaotic leader? It’s not as difficult as conventional wisdom would have you believe. Start by considering the 22 Republican senators who will be up for re-election in 2020. Trump lost two of those states (Maine and Colorado) and those two Senators have already jumped ship. There are another three states up in 2020 that Trump won by 5 points or less: Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina. Presidential races draw many more young people into the electorate, and young voters have not been enthusiastic about the Republican party or Donald Trump lately. So, some Republican Senators from these states may find it in their political interest to put some distance between themselves and their president.

Or, instead of looking at the senators up for re-election in 2020, one can look at the senators who just won re-election in 2018. A major reason for a Republican elected official to stick with Trump is fear of being “primaried” by one of the president’s hard-core supporters. But six years is a lifetime in politics. Senators who have just been re-elected have a long time to mend fences and fight off a primary challenge from the base, thus allowing them to move away from the president if they so wish.

In addition to the cold electoral calculations, personal grudges and resentments likely linger. One sure sign that Trump is not a politician is the enthusiasm with which he makes enemies and the reluctance with which he makes friends. Trump has a rather remarkable record of attacking senators in his own party. Remember his put down of Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)—“little Marco”—or his attacks on Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) wife and father. In his first summer in office, he engaged in a feud with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). High-profile Republicans have moved on from Trump’s insults in order to preserve party unity, but that trend is not guaranteed to continue.

Moving beyond cold political calculations and personal antipathy, one would hope that there are senators who will prioritize concerns for the United States’ position in the world. And in fact, there is evidence that this is the case. Modern American presidents are generally accorded a wide range of authority in foreign policy. But Republican senators have been openly critical of their president on a whole range of foreign policy issues—from Russian sanctions, to Trump’s summit with Putin, to his excusing the Saudi leadership’s alleged involvement in murder, to his precipitous withdrawal of forces around the world.

And last, but not least, is the newly elected Senator Mitt Romney (R-Utah). As a former Republican nominee for president, he commands a national audience. He marked his arrival in Washington with an op-ed piece openly critical of Trump, and he seems ready to take up the space left by Senator John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) death. Although he got some blowback from his fellow Republicans, it’s not hard to see him working the cloak room and garnering support for his own agenda—one that may not align with the president’s interests.

So, as the government shutdown continues, watch the Republican senators for cracks in their unity. They may have significant consequences down the road. Impeachment and conviction are in the hands of twenty Republican Senators. Democrats know that impeaching Donald Trump without Republican support is folly.

]]>
By Elaine Kamarck
Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK) has joined three other Republican Senators—Thom Tillis (NC), Susan Collins (ME), and Cory Gardner (CO)—to call for an end to the ongoing partial shutdown. These party defections illustrate that the longer Trump lets the shutdown go on, the more dangerous it gets for him. Once there are a total of 20 Republicans willing to vote with Democrats, they can override Trump’s threatened veto of the spending bill and the government will reopen. In other words, four down; 16 to go.
Such an outcome is not out of the question. Trump has been embarrassed by his party in the Senate before—remember the failed vote to repeal Obamacare? But this president seems unfazed by ordinary embarrassment and cares only about pleasing his base, not putting together majorities. What the president may not realize, however—and what makes a vote like this especially hazardous for him—is that 67 votes in the Senate is the same number that would be needed to convict him should the House, pending one or more bombshells in the Mueller report, decide to vote on articles of impeachment.
Can we imagine 20 Republicans deciding to abandon their party’s controversial and chaotic leader? It’s not as difficult as conventional wisdom would have you believe. Start by considering the 22 Republican senators who will be up for re-election in 2020. Trump lost two of those states (Maine and Colorado) and those two Senators have already jumped ship. There are another three states up in 2020 that Trump won by 5 points or less: Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina. Presidential races draw many more young people into the electorate, and young voters have not been enthusiastic about the Republican party or Donald Trump lately. So, some Republican Senators from these states may find it in their political interest to put some distance between themselves and their president.
Or, instead of looking at the senators up for re-election in 2020, one can look at the senators who just won re-election in 2018. A major reason for a Republican elected official to stick with Trump is fear of being “primaried” by one of the president’s hard-core supporters. But six years is a lifetime in politics. Senators who have just been re-elected have a long time to mend fences and fight off a primary challenge from the base, thus allowing them to move away from the president if they so wish.
In addition to the cold electoral calculations, personal grudges and resentments likely linger. One sure sign that Trump is not a politician is the enthusiasm with which he makes enemies and the reluctance with which he makes friends. Trump has a rather remarkable record of attacking senators in his own party. Remember his put down of Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)—“little Marco”—or his attacks on Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) wife and father. In his first summer in office, he engaged in a feud with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). High-profile Republicans have moved on from Trump’s insults in order to preserve party unity, but that trend is not guaranteed to continue.
Moving beyond cold political calculations and personal antipathy, one would hope that there are senators who will prioritize concerns for the United States’ position in the world. And in fact, there is evidence that this is the case. Modern American presidents are generally accorded a wide range of authority in foreign policy. But Republican senators have been openly critical of their president on a whole range of foreign policy issues—from Russian sanctions, to Trump’s summit with Putin, to his excusing the Saudi leadership’s alleged involvement in murder, to his precipitous withdrawal of forces around the world.
And last, but not least, is the newly elected Senator Mitt Romney (R-Utah). As a former Republican nominee for president, ... By Elaine Kamarck
Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK) has joined three other Republican Senators—Thom Tillis (NC), Susan Collins (ME), and Cory Gardner (CO)—to call for an end to the ongoing partial shutdown. These party defections illustrate ... https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/12/30/congress-in-2019-the-need-for-bipartisan-action-on-voting-rights-and-election-integrity/Congress in 2019: The need for bipartisan action on voting rights and election integrityhttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/589799912/0/brookingsrss/topics/politicsandelections~Congress-in-The-need-for-bipartisan-action-on-voting-rights-and-election-integrity/
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 16:14:47 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?p=555285

]]>
By Nicol Turner-Lee

Russian meddling has been at the forefront of most political conversations in 2018 and this will definitely be the case in the New Year. While the 116th Congress will most likely address the Mueller investigation report and its fallout, including a possible Trump impeachment, other areas that deserve bipartisan attention are voting rights and election integrity. The lead-up to this year’s midterm elections and the disarray in the various local races make the case for prioritizing these issues, along with the recent revelation that Russian operatives exploited social media platforms to discourage African-Americans and other vulnerable groups from voting in the 2016 presidential election.

Voter suppression tactics have been widely applied dating back to Reconstruction. Yet, this year’s efforts have been much more rampant, especially in the backdrop of the vitriolic, racialized climate fostered by President Trump and his administration. Following the 2013 Shelby v. Holder Supreme Court decision that eviscerated many of the protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, certain states have not hesitated to enact new laws and rules that restrict people of color from exercising their inalienable right to vote.

States like Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa and North Dakota have strict identification laws that largely penalize African-American, Hispanic and Native American voters. Texas even went so far as imposing voter ID requirements and restrictions on college students, a prominent Democratic voting bloc in local and national elections. Closed and changed polling locations, inoperable voting machines, and unavailable translators in immigrant-heavy communities have also contributed to voter confusion in several states that were previously subjected to federal pre-clearance before they made any changes to their voting laws or practices.

Not surprisingly, these cumulative experiences surfaced in the recent midterm elections, leading to longer lines at polling locations, voters being turned away, people being forced to vote via a provisional ballot, hand-counted ballots, several race recounts, and even delays in the announcement of winners.

Voter suppression was blatantly seen in the Georgia gubernatorial race between Republican Brian Kemp, who was ultimately elected while serving as the Secretary of State charged with administering that election, and Democratic state representative Stacy Abrams, who is black. As Secretary of State, Kemp was accused of purging 340,000 eligible voters from the registration rolls, simply because the state couldn’t verify their existing addresses through a mailer. He also blocked the registrations of a potential 50,000 voters, who were mainly African-American and Hispanic, due to minor discrepancies in the spelling and spacing of their names on forms. Kemp also dismissed a large number of absentee ballots, causing this election to be stolen by Republicans—Kemp ultimately won by fewer than 55,000 votes out of about 4 million cast.

A more egregious act of election fraud recently occurred in North Carolina, where absentee ballots were not only being requested in record numbers, but also proper absentee ballots were allegedly collected by operatives and destroyed—largely in communities of color. Since the 2016 presidential election, strict voter ID requirements, as well as changes to early voting and impromptu moves of polling locations, have negatively impacted minority voters in Wisconsin. The state also recently imposed the same hours on all polling places, regardless of population density, which resulted in longer wait times for minority voters from larger cities. In Florida, ex-felons, whose voting rights were restored, also experienced roadblocks as they sought to vote.

The Senate Intelligence Committee recently released two commissioned reports that detail the activities of the Internet Research Agency (I.R.A.), a company owned by a Russian businessman with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, which micro-targeted and manipulated American voters of color through a massive disinformation campaign on social media. Through fake accounts on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, African-Americans were fed information that brought doubt to their faith in elections and candidates, while receiving false facts about access to public polling sites, low minority turnout numbers, and then-candidate Hillary Clinton’s agenda on issues related to police brutality, mass incarceration, and poverty.

Republican-led voter suppression is not new, nor is Russian interference in American elections. But, the combined activities injected chaos into the formal and foundational underpinnings of U.S. democracy—the electoral process—over the last two years.

As Congress prepares to prioritize next year’s issues, they must work toward a bipartisan solution that provides some permanence to and protection of citizens’ voting rights. The incoming Congress has an opportunity to address this institutional vulnerability ahead of the 2020 national election. Despite the long-standing history of discrimination in U.S. elections, all citizens should have a right to a ballot, access to functional polling stations and practices, as well as early voting opportunities. These efforts will ensure that fair and diverse elections safely remain the core of our democracy.

Further, Congress should explore in the next session how to address election tampering by foreign countries, especially on platforms that are becoming widely used and in some cases, trusted by online users. This year, the Honest Ads Act, which will require full disclosures of online political ad funding, received bipartisan support from co-sponsors Senators Amy Klobuchar (D), Mark Warner (D) and the late John McCain (R). But what will be the legal and criminal recourse against foreign countries that seek to manipulate and exploit the emotional weaknesses and grievances of marginalized existing and potential voters on these platforms?

Next year, members of Congress have the same opportunity to strengthen national security around elections, bring some accountability and enforcement to social media companies, and create citizen awareness around these types of attacks.

With a presidential election looming, these issues should be prioritized before a possible and imminent electoral meltdown.

]]>
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/RTS19P33.jpg?w=270By Nicol Turner-Lee
Russian meddling has been at the forefront of most political conversations in 2018 and this will definitely be the case in the New Year. While the 116th Congress will most likely address the Mueller investigation report and its fallout, including a possible Trump impeachment, other areas that deserve bipartisan attention are voting rights and election integrity. The lead-up to this year’s midterm elections and the disarray in the various local races make the case for prioritizing these issues, along with the recent revelation that Russian operatives exploited social media platforms to discourage African-Americans and other vulnerable groups from voting in the 2016 presidential election.
Voter suppression tactics have been widely applied dating back to Reconstruction. Yet, this year’s efforts have been much more rampant, especially in the backdrop of the vitriolic, racialized climate fostered by President Trump and his administration. Following the 2013 Shelby v. Holder Supreme Court decision that eviscerated many of the protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, certain states have not hesitated to enact new laws and rules that restrict people of color from exercising their inalienable right to vote.
States like Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa and North Dakota have strict identification laws that largely penalize African-American, Hispanic and Native American voters. Texas even went so far as imposing voter ID requirements and restrictions on college students, a prominent Democratic voting bloc in local and national elections. Closed and changed polling locations, inoperable voting machines, and unavailable translators in immigrant-heavy communities have also contributed to voter confusion in several states that were previously subjected to federal pre-clearance before they made any changes to their voting laws or practices.
Not surprisingly, these cumulative experiences surfaced in the recent midterm elections, leading to longer lines at polling locations, voters being turned away, people being forced to vote via a provisional ballot, hand-counted ballots, several race recounts, and even delays in the announcement of winners.
Voter suppression was blatantly seen in the Georgia gubernatorial race between Republican Brian Kemp, who was ultimately elected while serving as the Secretary of State charged with administering that election, and Democratic state representative Stacy Abrams, who is black. As Secretary of State, Kemp was accused of purging 340,000 eligible voters from the registration rolls, simply because the state couldn’t verify their existing addresses through a mailer. He also blocked the registrations of a potential 50,000 voters, who were mainly African-American and Hispanic, due to minor discrepancies in the spelling and spacing of their names on forms. Kemp also dismissed a large number of absentee ballots, causing this election to be stolen by Republicans—Kemp ultimately won by fewer than 55,000 votes out of about 4 million cast.
A more egregious act of election fraud recently occurred in North Carolina, where absentee ballots were not only being requested in record numbers, but also proper absentee ballots were allegedly collected by operatives and destroyed—largely in communities of color. Since the 2016 presidential election, strict voter ID requirements, as well as changes to early voting and impromptu moves of polling locations, have negatively impacted minority voters in Wisconsin. The state also recently imposed the same hours on all polling places, regardless of population density, which resulted in longer wait times for minority voters from larger cities. In Florida, ex-felons, whose voting rights were restored, also experienced roadblocks as they sought to vote.
In 2018, these voter suppression efforts found an ally: the Russians. Last week, it was reported that a Russian operative compromised the ... By Nicol Turner-Lee
Russian meddling has been at the forefront of most political conversations in 2018 and this will definitely be the case in the New Year. While the 116th Congress will most likely address the Mueller investigation report and its ... https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/12/28/congress-in-2019-the-2nd-most-educated-and-least-politically-experienced-house-freshman-class/Congress in 2019: The 2nd most educated and least politically experienced House freshman classhttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/588707502/0/brookingsrss/topics/politicsandelections~Congress-in-The-nd-most-educated-and-least-politically-experienced-House-freshman-class/
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 15:00:47 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?p=554700

]]>
By Casey Burgat, Charles Hunt

As we outlined in an earlier article, the 116th Congress is going to look a lot different than its predecessors thanks to a younger, more female, less white new cohort of Democrats. And weeks before even being sworn into office, many new members have already made their presence known—from livestreaming portions of their orientation, to joining an environmental protest in likely-Speaker Pelosi’s office, to exchanging their speakership votes for promises of attention to climate change.

But the incoming freshman class is notable not just because of their demographics, but also because of the types of experience and expertise they’re bringing to Congress. The “Blue Wave” is bringing record levels of educational attainment to the 116th Congress, but it’s also sweeping in the least politically experienced cohort in modern history. These divergent types of expertise, which fit into recent trends in the House, seem likely to have a lasting effect on both the political culture of the chamber and on the types and quality of policy that emerge from it.

We looked at data from 1789 on, but for the following charts we’ll focus on 1967-present.

The highest-educated Congress in history

Since the 90th Congress (1967-1968), members of Congress have continued to become better educated. The House of Representatives has long maintained a very high proportion of college graduates for decades with a minimum of 94 percent of members earning a bachelor’s degree during the period. But the chamber has decidedly increased its share of lawmakers who have earned postgraduate degrees, including law, medical, and master’s degrees. In the 90th Congress, less than 60 percent of representatives had completed postgraduate education. The 116th Congress will boast the most educated Congress in history with 72 percent of the House having earned a graduate degree.

Freshmen have often outpaced the education levels of the rest of the chamber, particularly in the most recent congresses. The incoming freshmen of the 116th are the among the highest-educated incoming class ever, second only to their predecessors in the 115th Congress.

Educated but very inexperienced at governing

This new class is record setting in another way: the House’s incoming freshmen are the least politically experienced cohort in the chamber’s history. Seriously, we looked. Eighty-six percent of the very first Congress, in which all members were technically freshmen, had previously held elected office. The second-least politically experienced freshman class (45 percent of members holding prior elected office) belongs to the 97th Congress (1981-1982).

In the last two congresses, and in the upcoming 116th Congress in particular, the political experience of freshmen members has taken a nosedive. Of the new members of the 114th Congress, for example, 52 percent had state-level political experience (such as serving as a state legislator or state attorney general), and 36 percent had local experience (such as serving as a mayor or on a city council). For the 116th Congress freshmen, those numbers are 32 percent and 15 percent respectively. Only 41 percent of freshmen had any prior political experience of any kind. That makes it the least-experienced freshmen class in the history of the House.

Receding institutional memory in the chamber

In a period of extreme dissatisfaction with Congress and with questions increasing about its own capacity to do its job, many point to a decreasing level of institutional memory as a main culprit for why Congress seems unwilling and unable to perform its expected duties. After all, the inevitable result of any wave election is that a large portion of the House is completely new to the job. As a result, a non-trivial portion of the chamber is unfamiliar with the intricacies and traditions of Capitol Hill and is increasingly removed from more functional, productive eras in the House. Instead, members only know hyper-partisan gridlock.

As the above graphic makes clear, however, levels of institutional memory—here measured as number of terms served—have ebbed and flowed since the late 1960s with freshman and sophomore members regularly constituting up over one quarter of the chamber. The 116th Congress will skew more inexperienced with exactly one-third of lawmakers having served one term or less upon being sworn in come January. For comparison, the Gingrich Revolution’s 104th Congress was made up of 38 percent freshmen and sophomores.

But important to note, it isn’t the well-experienced members who are booted from the chamber when large freshman classes are elected. The proportion of members serving at least 10 years in the House has only dipped below 25 percent once since the late 1960s (98th Congress), providing a strong counterweight of experience to the inexperienced wing of the chamber. And the share of “lifer” members (those serving 20 or more years) has remained remarkably consistent over the period, at around 15 percent; in fact, its share has slightly increased in recent years.

Instead, it is the moderately experienced members—those serving four to eight years—whose congressional tenures are most likely to end, either through defeat or retirement. This dynamic gives us a few great insights into common frustrations on Capitol Hill.

First, many of the moderately experienced members take themselves out of the chamber by declining to run for reelection. Of course, many of these members face daunting reelection prospects, but as has been well-documented, these members, after having become intimately familiar with congressional dysfunction after a few terms of service, decry their limited involvement, the centralized, leadership-driven lawmaking process, and constant fundraising demands. Freshmen and sophomores are hopeful about their impact, but after a few terms lawmakers become frustrated to the point of retirement.

And second, successful wave elections often characterize the institution as badly in need of new energy, ideas, and processes. Young members are elected on promises of action in an environment mired in gridlock. They promise to return the House to the people through the upending of the centralized policymaking process. The 2018 election was no different, and so far, this incoming freshman class has proven willing to take on the established ways and leaders of the Hill. How long the effects of the 2018 blue wave lasts are still to be determined.

]]>
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/capitol_blue001-e1524317306567.jpg?w=320By Casey Burgat, Charles Hunt
As we outlined in an earlier article, the 116th Congress is going to look a lot different than its predecessors thanks to a younger, more female, less white new cohort of Democrats. And weeks before even being sworn into office, many new members have already made their presence known—from livestreaming portions of their orientation, to joining an environmental protest in likely-Speaker Pelosi’s office, to exchanging their speakership votes for promises of attention to climate change.
But the incoming freshman class is notable not just because of their demographics, but also because of the types of experience and expertise they’re bringing to Congress. The “Blue Wave” is bringing record levels of educational attainment to the 116th Congress, but it’s also sweeping in the least politically experienced cohort in modern history. These divergent types of expertise, which fit into recent trends in the House, seem likely to have a lasting effect on both the political culture of the chamber and on the types and quality of policy that emerge from it.
We looked at data from 1789 on, but for the following charts we’ll focus on 1967-present.
The highest-educated Congress in history
Since the 90th Congress (1967-1968), members of Congress have continued to become better educated. The House of Representatives has long maintained a very high proportion of college graduates for decades with a minimum of 94 percent of members earning a bachelor’s degree during the period. But the chamber has decidedly increased its share of lawmakers who have earned postgraduate degrees, including law, medical, and master’s degrees. In the 90th Congress, less than 60 percent of representatives had completed postgraduate education. The 116th Congress will boast the most educated Congress in history with 72 percent of the House having earned a graduate degree.
Freshmen have often outpaced the education levels of the rest of the chamber, particularly in the most recent congresses. The incoming freshmen of the 116th are the among the highest-educated incoming class ever, second only to their predecessors in the 115th Congress.
Educated but very inexperienced at governing
This new class is record setting in another way: the House’s incoming freshmen are the least politically experienced cohort in the chamber’s history. Seriously, we looked. Eighty-six percent of the very first Congress, in which all members were technically freshmen, had previously held elected office. The second-least politically experienced freshman class (45 percent of members holding prior elected office) belongs to the 97th Congress (1981-1982).
In the last two congresses, and in the upcoming 116th Congress in particular, the political experience of freshmen members has taken a nosedive. Of the new members of the 114th Congress, for example, 52 percent had state-level political experience (such as serving as a state legislator or state attorney general), and 36 percent had local experience (such as serving as a mayor or on a city council). For the 116th Congress freshmen, those numbers are 32 percent and 15 percent respectively. Only 41 percent of freshmen had any prior political experience of any kind. That makes it the least-experienced freshmen class in the history of the House.
Receding institutional memory in the chamber
In a period of extreme dissatisfaction with Congress and with questions increasing about its own capacity to do its job, many point to a decreasing level of institutional memory as a main culprit for why Congress seems unwilling and unable to perform its expected duties. After all, the inevitable result of any wave election is that a large portion of the House is completely new to the job. As a result, a non-trivial portion of the chamber is unfamiliar with the intricacies and traditions of Capitol Hill and is increasingly removed from ... By Casey Burgat, Charles Hunt
As we outlined in an earlier article, the 116th Congress is going to look a lot different than its predecessors thanks to a younger, more female, less white new cohort of Democrats. And weeks before even being sworn ...